alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. L. G. BUMPERS, Defendant in Error.

No. 37872.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 27, 1958.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1958.

*1065Pat Mehaffy, Little Rock, Ark., Roy Frye, Sallisaw, Thomas Harper, Fort Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.

Green, Green & Green, Sallisaw, for defendant in error.

CORN, Vice Chief Justice.

This is an attempted appeal by petition in error, with case-made attached, from a judgment of the District Court of Sequoyah County, Oklahoma in a personal injury action. The court’s judgment was rendered on the 12th day of March, 1957. The appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled on the 25th day of March, 1957. The case-made was settled and signed by the trial judge May 22, 1957. The petition in error, with case-made attached, was not filed, in this court until the 22nd day of June, 1957, which was more than twenty days from the date the case-made was settled and signed.

Our statute requires that proceedings *be*commenced within 20 days from the date the case-made is settled. 12 O.S.1955 Supp. § 972. It is apparent that this court is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

WELCH, C. J., and DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD and JACKSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended January 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|Dated: December 14, 2007 | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM   
|------------------------ | -----------------------
|                         | Steven D. Bonham       
|                         | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SCIENTIFIC GAMES FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,918
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,151
<PP&E>                                         118,370
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 185,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,312
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   185,231
<SALES>                                         52,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,665
<CGS>                                           33,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,081
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,075
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,006
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,006
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   11,883
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   11,996
        

</TABLE>
Opinion issued August 23 , 201 2 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 12 - 00 353 - CV

——————————— ANNESTRICE FRAZIER , Appellant

V. AMERICAN GENERAL LIF E INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 125 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. 2011 - 33427

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Annestrice Frazier , ha s neither paid the required filing fee for this appeal nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must
pay

— at the time an item is presented for filing

— whatever fees are required by2

statute or Supreme Court order.” ), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing in digence); see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court of appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals an d Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 ( Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX
. R. A PP
. P . app. A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). Appellant was notified on April 19, 2012 that this appeal would be subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid by April 29, 2012

. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing involunta ry dismissal of case). Appellant was again notified on June 5, 2012 that this appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to pay the fee. Appellant did not respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dism issal of case). We dismiss the appeal

. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown

.
#### Rodrigues v. Rodrigues

19188

10/8/97

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Michael E. Hofmann, Chief Financial Officer of Itec Environmental Group Inc. certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Itec Environmental Group Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



/s/ Michael E. Hofmann

----------------------

Michael E. Hofmann

Date: April 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      19,198,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              271,172,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,142,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           312,999,000
<PP&E>                                      51,446,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              39,648,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             398,466,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      222,478,000
<BONDS>                                    141,004,000<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       225,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,102,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               398,466,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,108,116<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  973,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,195,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,276,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,561,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                (3,319,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,987,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,987,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.22)
<FN>
<F1>Excludes current portion of bonds, mortgages, and similar debt.
<F2>Represents gross revenue which includes costs of certain services
subcontracted to third parties and other reimbursable direct project costs, such
as materials procured by the Company on behalf of its customers.
</FN>


</TABLE>
مكافحة الراعوش والقضاء علیھ!

تحصل مرافق الذبح التي تحفظ رؤوس الأغنام والماعز

البالغة على مقابل مادي.

لماذا الراعوش؟ كیف تقدم المساعدة؟

الراعوش یقتل الماعز والأغنام في الوقت الذي یقلل 

فیھ من حجم الصادرات. والصناعة بحاجة إلى

دتك لمعمساع رفة متى ظھرت آخر ح في الة راعوش

الولایات المتحدة وموعد إعلان الولایات المتحدة خالیة

من الراعوش.

ّنات

.1 إعداد اتفاقیة أخذ عی

.2 حفظ رؤوس الأغنام والماعز*البالغة

ّ

.3 تخزین الرؤس وكل الم ماترق

(مثل علامات الأذن) في الثلاجة.

*یجب أن تبلغ الحیوانات على الأقل 18

ً شھرا من العمر.

$

الاتصال

وزارة الزراعة في الولایات المتحدة ھي مزود تكافؤ الفرص وصاحب عمل ومقرض. تاریخ الإصدار: مایو 2023
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



The undersigned directors of Sky Financial Group, Inc. hereby authorize and
appoint David R. Francisco, Chairman and C.E.O., and/or Kevin T. Thompson,
Executive Vice President and C.F.O., as our agents, as attorneys-in-fact, with
full power to act for us and all of us, for the purpose of subscribing our names
to the Form 10-K thereof to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and for the purpose of making any changes or amendments necessary or
desirable to such documents and to any documents ancillary thereto, with the
same powers and to the same effect as we may do if personally present:

Signed in counterpart and dated this 1st day of March, 1999.


/s/ Marty E. Adams                 /s/ Gerald D. Aller
Marty E. Adams                     Gerald D. Aller

/s/ David A. Bryan                 /s/ Keith D. Burgett
David A. Bryan                     Keith D. Burgett

/s/ George N. Chandler II          /s/ Willard L. Davis
George N. Chandler II              Willard L. Davis

/s/ Del E. Goedeker                /s/ D. James Hilliker
Del E. Goedeker                    D. James Hilliker

/s/ Richard R. Hollington, Jr.     /s/ Fred H. Johnson III
Richard R. Hollington, Jr.         Fred H. Johnson III

/s/ H. Lee Kinney                  /s/ Marilyn O. McAlear
H. Lee Kinney                      Marilyn O. McAlear

/s/ James C. McBane                /s/ Kenneth E. McConnell
James C. McBane                    Kenneth E. McConnell

/s/ Gerard P. Mastroianni          /s/ Thomas S. Noneman
Gerard P. Mastroianni              Thomas S. Noneman

/s/ Edward J. Reiter               /s/ Patrick W. Rooney
Edward J. Reiter                   Patrick W. Rooney

/s/ Emerson J. Ross, Jr.           /s/ Douglas J. Shierson
Emerson J. Ross, Jr.               Douglas J. Shierson

/s/ C. Gregory Spangler            /s/ Robert E. Stearns 
C. Gregory Spangler                Robert E. Stearns

/s/ Glenn F. Thorne                /s/ Joseph N. Tosh, II
Glenn F. Thorne                    Joseph N. Tosh, II
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 5, 2021

No. 04-19-00871-CR

Charles W. EADEN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR4480

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to 

raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant,

informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and explained to 

appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 1996, no pet.); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). If 

appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within forty-five (45) days from the date of 

this order. 

The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant 

files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no 

later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel to be HELD IN 

ABEYANCE pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988); 

Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

We instruct the Clerk of this Court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his counsel, 

the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.
_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of February, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
# C_2019246EN.01004901.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/49

---

Order of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission

(Case T-420/18) (1)

(2019/C 246/49)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 28, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00231-CV

CHARLOTTE BUCKNER, Appellant

V.

WHITE ROCK HILL TOWNHOMES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06021-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Nowell

This is an appeal from the trial court’s March 6, 2023 final judgment of 

possession in a forcible detainer suit. Asserting the appeal has become moot because 

appellant is no longer in possession of the subject property, appellee has filed a 

motion to dismiss.

The only issue in a forcible detainer suit is the right to actual possession of the 

premises. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 

785 (Tex. 2006). Unless the tenant has a “potentially meritorious claim of right to 

current, actual possession,” the issue of possession and the case become moot when 
–2–

the tenant vacates the property. See id. at 787. When a case becomes moot on 

appeal, an appellate court must set aside or vacate the trial court’s judgment and 

dismiss the case. See id. at 785, 790.

Although appellant has had more than ten days to respond to appellee’s 

motion, she has not done so. Accordingly, with nothing before us showing appellant 

has a “potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession,” we grant 

appellee’s motion, vacate the trial court’s March 6th judgment of possession, and 

dismiss the case. See id. at 790.

230231f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell//

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CHARLOTTE BUCKNER, 

Appellant

No. 05-23-00231-CV V.

WHITE ROCK HILL 

TOWNHOMES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06021-

B.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, 

Justices Goldstein and Breedlove 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial 

court’s March 6, 2023 judgment of possession and DISMISS the case.

Judgment entered this 28th day of April, 2023.
# C_2018373EN.01001502.xml

| 15.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/15

---

Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — IRF (MediWell)

(Case T-502/18)

(2018/C 373/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IRF s. r. o. (Bratislava, Slovakia).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark MediWell — Application for registration No 15 078 645

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2018 in Case R 6/2018-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division;

| — | refuse the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse the mark applied for;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
January 2024

There were 9 surveillance inspections conducted at 9 different sites for a total of 45

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities. The 

water temperatures continued to decrease in response to colder air temperatures. 

Routine harvest continued. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and 

were scheduled for monthly sampling.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

February 2023 74 0 25576

March 2023 35 0 25611

April 2023 59 0 25670

May 2023 60 0 25730

June 2023 55 1 25785

July 2023 60 0 25845

August 2023 50 0 25895

September 2023 45 0 25940

October 2023 45 0 25985

November 2023 45 0 26030

December 2023 45 0 26075

January 2024 45 0 26120